Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for September 2017

Myth vs. Reality in Gun Debates

with 2 comments

By Sam Bocetta
American Thinker
September 27, 2017

There is one debate which is particularly prone to being warped by politically-motivated myths: that on gun control. In addition, any fair observer would have to conclude that these myths are particularly prevalent on one side of the debate. Gun control activists don’t seem to know a lot about the way that guns actually work, and are worryingly susceptible to their own propaganda.

You could argue that this is not their fault: many people who are vehemently anti-gun have never had the opportunity or need to fire one, and so it’s natural they don’t know much about them. Their only contact with the gun control debate comes in those moments immediately after a school massacre. They forget that, every day, hundreds of thousands of gun owners use their weapons responsibly, and lock them up safely at the end of the day.

When seen from this narrow perspective, and without daily contact with actual weapons, the liberal left is still misled by a number of myths about guns. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current debate on the The Hearing Protection Act 2017.

An Example: Why A Suppressor Is Not A “Silencer”

The Hearing Protection Act 2017 is currently awaiting a hearing in Congress. It seeks to reduce the restrictions on buying suppressors, which date back to 1934. Like any debate on gun control measures, the Act has polarized opinion, and has led to impassioned speeches, warped statistics, and divisive rhetoric from both sides.

What is strikingly apparent in these debates, has been the level of ignorance on the side of those who wish to limit access to suppressors. It seems that many liberal politicians, having never used a suppressor, are under the impression that they allow criminals to kill people silently.

If you’ve never used a gun fitted with a suppressor, let me reassure you that they are still incredibly loud. As loud, in fact, as a pneumatic hammer hitting concrete, a level of noise that even liberals seem to have no trouble hearing. Still, the myth remains, and many opposing the bill naively – or cynically – refer to suppressors as “silencers”.

The funny thing about this is that suppressors, when they were invented back in 1909, were originally called “silencers”. This, however, was blatant hyperbole – calling these devices “silencers” is equivalent to marketing a flannel shirt as an arctic coat. The irony here is that those who oppose the bill have taken the overblown claims of weapons manufacturers as literal truth.

My point is that, if you are ideologically opposed to guns, have never actually used one, and have been raised on a diet of Dick Tracy and James Bond movies, the myth that a suppressor is a “silencer” is a useful fiction.

The Reality

This mistaken belief leads to a number of hilarious arguments against the bill. Take this one, put forward by Kristen Rand of VPC back in June: “Silencers are military-bred accessories that make it easier for criminals to take innocent lives and threaten law enforcement. Existing federal law has kept crimes committed with silencer-equipped firearms rare”.

Where to begin? She is correct in one respect, of course: crimes committed with “silencers” are very rare. Knox Williams, president and executive director for the American Suppressor Association, told Guns.com in August that of the 1.3 million suppressors in circulation, his group can only fund 16 instances of criminal use since 2011. As he pointed out, “that translates to the misuse of a glaringly low percentage of suppressors in circulation – roughly 0.000012308 percent.”

Now, if you think that a suppressor makes your gun silent, I can imagine how you would think that limiting their use would be a good thing. However, as anyone who uses a gun knows, the reason why suppressors are not used to commit crimes is not because of the Federal limitations on their use, but simply because they are totally useless if you want to commit a crime. Law enforcement is still going to hear the shots, and adding a suppressor to your weapon makes it much harder to handle.

In reality, suppressors are used primarily by hunters, who risk significant damage to their hearing if they use unsuppressed weapons. At present, hunters are faced with a very difficult choice. They can either go through the lengthy (and unconstitutional) process of obtaining a suppressor, or they can wear any OSHA-certified protective ear muffs, which function as hearing protection. Doing the latter is, at the moment, the preferred choice, but has the unfortunate consequence of deadening all sound, which makes hunting more dangerous than it should be. It is this absurd situation that the Hearing Protection Act seeks to change.

Dangerous Myths

The unfortunate reality is that, in the gun debate and several others, the people making laws are the least qualified to do so, because they lack first-hand experience of the issues they are talking about. And this lack of first-hand experience means that they are susceptible to myths that any experienced gun owner could dispel within a few seconds.

Chicago Archbishop Gets Called Out for ‘Foolish’ Gun Ban

with one comment

By Erika Haas
Bearing Arms
September 18, 2017

Earlier this week, Cardinal Blase Joseph Cupich, the Archbishop of Chicago, decided the best way to keep Clergy members and churchgoers safe would be to issue a formal decree banning firearms from all churches, schools, and other properties across the archdiocese.

Reverends in the city heaped praise on Cupich for the move. However, not all Illinois residents are on board with the ban.

One of them is Marie E. Roman, who lives in a small town just outside the city. In a letter to the editor of the Chicago Sun Times, Roman lets everyone know exactly what she thinks of the Cardinal’s decree.

Cardinal Blase Cupich is foolish to think that banning guns on church and school property increases safety. It is, in fact, an unsafe measure for peace-loving churchgoers and school-age children.

People who legally carry concealed weapons must go through background checks, attend gun safety classes and be certified by the state. Their guns must be registered with the state. They have a right to protect themselves from predators who abide by none of these safeguards and requirements.

A picture on a church or school door of a gun in a red circle with an X over it is unsettling. It is not conducive to interior peace nor prayer, defeating the purpose of a church or a school. It is an open invitation for radicals to come in and start shooting.

The cardinal’s intentions are good, but he is living in a fantasyland to think that the “no guns” sign will keep out radicals with evil intentions.

Well said, Roman.

Islamic State calls on Muslims to commit jihad mass murder at hurricane relief centers

with 2 comments

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
September 16, 2017

“To all the (lone mujahids) in the U.S. (warrior), pop down to Houston and drop in at any of the relief centers housing displaced people from the Houston floods, make sure to bring lots of supplies/gadgets/toys to see if you can help put any (unbeliever) out of their misery.”

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom you may not know, but whom Allah knows.” (Qur’an 8:60)

“Tweets linked to ISIS target hurricane cities,” by Scott Zamost, CNBC, September 15, 2017:

Law enforcement officials have been advised to step up alerts for “lone wolf attackers” in Miami, Houston and other cities in the wake of threatening social media posts that appear to be connected to ISIS, according to an internal government intelligence document.

The confidential “situation awareness” document, obtained by CNBC, is dated Sept. 14 from the Homeland Security Bureau’s Southeast Florida Fusion Center. The center is the Miami-Dade Police Department’s Homeland Security Bureau. It was sent to law enforcement and “homeland security communities.”

“On Sept. 11, there was a twitter posting that appears to be authored by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that threatens Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Miami and Las Vegas, the document states.

The posting said there were “a lot of opportunities for the Soldiers of Islamic state to target, the Question is When?”

The document, which is unclassified, mentions a Newsweek article dated Sept. 6 that cites another ISIS posting calling for attacks on Houston relief centers. The article said: “To all the (lone mujahids) in the U.S. (warrior), pop down to Houston and drop in at any of the relief centers housing displaced people from the Houston floods, make sure to bring lots of supplies/gadgets/toys to see if you can help put any (unbeliever) out of their misery.”

The document also states: “Another Jihadist, in Arabic writing said, ‘A historic hurricane will hit Florida, especially the city of Miami soon’ One that would leave an ‘international tragedy’ on American soil. He quotes Allah saying that a ‘roaring wind in the days of the snakes’ had been sent and makes use of a hurricane emoji.”…

The Nazi’s First Victims Were the Disabled

leave a comment »

By Alex Schadenberg
September 16, 2017

The sad reality is that people will often forget human history. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I think that everyone needs to read the article, The Nazi’s First Victims Were the Disabled, that was published in the New York Times on September 13.

This excellent article is written by Kenny Fries, an author who recently published “In the Province of the Gods.” Fries is writing about his explanation to a young German neurologist of the truth about how the Nazi’s T4 euthanasia program killed as many as 300,000 people with disabilities. The killing techniques were developed in the Psychiatric hospitals and then used in the Nazi death camps. Fries takes the killing of people with disabilities personally:

I have a personal stake in making sure this history is remembered. In 1960, I was born missing bones in both legs. At the time, some thought I should not be allowed to live. Thankfully, my parents were not among them.

I first discovered that people with disabilities were sterilized and killed by the Nazis when I was a teenager, watching the TV mini-series “Holocaust” in 1978. But it would be years before I understood the connections between the killing of the disabled and the killing of Jews and other “undesirables,” all of whom were, in one way or another, deemed “unfit.”

Many facts about the Nazi T4 euthanasia program are not well known. Fries explains:

While he does know that approximately 300,000 disabled people were killed in T4 and its aftermath, he doesn’t know about the direct connection between T4 and the Holocaust. He doesn’t know that it was at Brandenburg, the first T4 site, where methods of mass killing were tested, that the first victims of Nazi mass killings were the disabled, and that its personnel went on to establish and run the extermination camps at Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor.

Three years earlier, when I first arrived in Germany, I was consistently confronted with the treatment of those with disabilities under the Third Reich. But I soon realized I had to go back even farther. In the 1920s, the disabled were mistreated, sterilized, experimented on and killed in some German psychiatric institutions. In 1920, the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and the jurist Karl Binding published their treatise, “Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life,” which became the blueprint for the exterminations of the disabled carried out by the Third Reich.

I am also Jewish. At the Karl Bonhoeffer psychiatric hospital in the Berlin suburb of Wittenau, where the exhibition “A Double Stigma: The Fate of Jewish Psychiatric Patients” was held, I learned about, as the exhibition title suggests, how Jewish patients were doubly stigmatized by being separated from other patients, denied pastoral care, and were cared for not at the expense of the Reich but by Jewish organizations. Jewish patients were singled out for early extermination; by December 1942, the destruction of the Jewish patient population at Wittenau was complete.

Fries explains why the history of the Nazi T4 euthanasia program important to us today:

Why is it important to know this history? We often say what happened in Nazi Germany couldn’t happen here. But some of it, like the mistreatment and sterilization of the disabled, did happen here.

A reading of Hoche and Binding’s “Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life” shows the similarity between what they said and what exponents of practical ethics, such as Peter Singer, say about the disabled today. As recently as 2015, Singer, talking with the radio host Aaron Klein on his show, said, “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

These philosophers talk about the drain on “resources” caused by lives lived with a disability, which eerily echoes what Hoche and Binding wrote about the “financial and moral burden” on “a person’s family, hospital, and state” caused by what they deem lives “unworthy of living.”

Many people think that these attitudes towards people with disabilities are in the past. Fries asks the question:

What kind of society do we want to be? Those of us who live with disabilities are at the forefront of the larger discussion of what constitutes a valued life. What is a life worth living? Too often, the lives of those of us who live with disabilities are not valued, and feared. At the root of this fear is misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and a lack of knowledge of disability history and, thus, disabled lives.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

Dear Dreamers

with one comment

US Code Title 8 Subsection 1325 (a) defines the elements of improper entry by aliens into the United States.

Regardless of how “Dreamers” landed on the shores of the United States, they are still illegal aliens – non-citizens of America – without the constitutional rights enjoyed by citizens, or the privileges granted to documented foreign residents and valid visa holders. Yet as a country of Natural Rights and Laws, illegal aliens are protected from governmental force by the Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment guarantees the rights to “freedom of speech, to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” for United States’ citizens. In most cases, non-citizens are afforded this right. This right does not give anyone or any group permission to use the “hecklers’ veto” to drown out others from asserting their right to openly express their opinions or views. This was exactly what happened on September 18, 2017, by a radical leftist group of illegal alien dreamers. It was a despicable display of thanklessness for a person trying to push through federal legislation to bring these illegal aliens into compliance with federal statutes.

A lot is being said about how a contract exits between a former president of the United States and illegal aliens. The supposed contract was not signed by a president. It was a memorandum signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012. The memorandum set forth how, through prosecutorial discretion, “the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.” It outlines the criteria for dreamers to follow to comply with this change in policy. Should a dreamer fail to follow the rules he would subject himself to deportation. Because the memorandum was directing federal agencies how to administratively enforce statues, it fails the legal tests of a contract.

The United States is a country of laws. The federal government answers to and represents only citizens of the United States. Illegal aliens are not citizens, therefore, the United States government is not answerable to them. If illegal aliens want a voice in the United States government, follow the legal process to become a full-fledged legal citizen.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

September 26, 2017 at 06:00

Why Firearm Preemption Laws Are Smart Policy

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
September 19, 2017

The crowd at The Trace is at it again. This time, they’re whining about firearm preemption laws in Virginia. You see, the City of Richmond has banned numerous things from protests that can be used as weapons, things like bats, shields, and knives. Yet they’re barred from blocking firearms due to the state’s preemption law.

For those who are unfamiliar, preemption laws mean that all firearm laws must come from the state’s legislative bodies. Individual communities can’t enact their own laws or regulations regarding guns.

And for The Trace, that’s a problem.

Richmond is bracing for possible clashes as a small pro-Confederate group descends on the Virginia capital for a rally this weekend. The event comes a month after a demonstration in Charlottesville descended into deadly violence. In preparation, the city has banned bats, shields, knives, and poles from the gathering — but not guns.

The reason is the same as why armed militia members and protesters were allowed to patrol the streets of Charlottesville: Virginia is one of 36 states that allows guns at protests, and also prevents municipalities from enacting their own gun-related restrictions.

On Tuesday, Virginia convened policymakers and legal experts to look for a way to get around the laws, but that effort came up short. Richmond officials have concluded that they can not legally ban firearms from public demonstrations.

Of course, The Trace ignores the reason that preemption laws exist in the first place.

While it’s simple to look at a moment like this and argue that all Richmond wants to do is keep its community safe–ignoring that there are legitimate reasons why someone might need a firearm at a political protest–you can’t look at laws simply by what they prevent you from doing in one single instance where it may arguably do some good (hint: It won’t).

Instead, you have to look at what cities do throughout this nation in states without preemption laws.

I living in a state with a preemption law. Imagine that I, a lawful and law-abiding gun owners, conducted business throughout my state on a regular basis, and due to the nature of that business, felt the need to carry a firearm. Without preemption laws, I would have to become familiar with the gun laws of any city I decided to enter, assuming there were any, then tiptoe around each regulation as needed. I might also find myself needing a special permit to carry in that city that wouldn’t do me any good beyond the city limits.

Preemption laws make firearm laws universal throughout a state. It makes it easier for people to know what is acceptable and what isn’t. It helps a person from Atlanta know that the pistol they get a glimpse of when the man in front grabs his wallet isn’t necessarily illegal because it wouldn’t necessarily be illegal in their home.

It creates a uniformity in the law that makes the legalities far, far easier to navigate.

So yes, it may keep the City of Richmond from being able to keep guns from a protest. Even if you agree that would be a good thing, it shouldn’t be too difficult to see that removing preemption would create many more problems than it would solve. It would create criminals out of people who simply followed what was legal everywhere else in the state except for those few square miles of dirt.

If you can’t see the problem with that, why should we listen to anything else you have to utter?

This is really something

with one comment

By Elvis Dunn

The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture.  There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we’ve experienced over the last month.  Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.
– Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner

This is perhaps the most hypocritical statement made so far in 2017!

The state of identity politics began to take off on January 20, 2009. It was brought to a new level of disrespect for everyone who swears an oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States” on August 14, 2016, by a single coddled millionaire NFL employee.  But the real horror behind the loathsome high jinks is the unmitigated indifference he showed for those who made the ultimate sacrifice and the families of the fallen.

It is true individuals have a right to offend and trigger whomever they please with their hateful antics. This does not make it appropriate to use their employers’ platform to demonstrate against a supposedly oppressive system. It is better for all concerned if individuals articulate their views in the public square, on their own time, and at places unconnected to their employers.

The NFL facilitates the despicable act of kneeling during the National Anthem by allowing privileged millionaire employees to exhibit disrespect for those who put on a uniform and rush into danger as others are fleeing to protect the lives and properties of  their fellow citizens without regards to what “community” they claim. This is the apex of self-sacrifice that the majority of the pandered to NFL workforce has no clue about. The biggest sacrifice a pampered millionaire NFL employee may make is agreeing to a twelve million dollars contract over six years rather than five.

“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture.” By allowing its hacks to kneel at the playing of the National Anthem, the NFL and its workforce drives a wedge deeper into the divide of US communities.

Yes, it was an admirable display of compassion the way a minority of NFL lackeys responded to the recent natural disasters that hit the people in the southeastern portion of the United States. They deserve one “atta boy” for their actions. However, no NFL laborer missed a Lamborghini car payment by helping monetarily in this endeavor.

Why weren’t the toadies physically on the front lines distributing aid and comfort to members of the communities ravaged by these disasters?

Or was it just a matter of adding name recognition to someone else’s worthy cause without getting personally involved?

Where was the real self-sacrifice!?

Marines have a saying that goes like this:

“One ‘aw shucks’ will wipe out a 100,000 atta boys!”

In the case of the NFL, it has an “aw shucks” moment every time it tolerates its workers to kneel as the National Anthem is played before the game. This wipes out all the “forces for good [the] clubs and players represent in [their] communities.”

If the NFL wants to halt its declining ratings among American sports viewers it must halt these deplorable, divisive, and hateful demonstrations, then hold their hired-hands accountable for their actions.

Is the NFL Commissioner looking for sympathy for the NFL’s overpaid and underworked human resources? Here is a hint. Sympathy can be found in a dictionary between the words sh** and syphilis.

After serving on active duty for most of my adult life, I fully support these spoiled top one-percent US income-earning brats and the NFL rights guarded by our republican form of government.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

September 24, 2017 at 20:01

Australia: Girls as young as 9 trafficked into forced marriages

with one comment

By Christine Douglas-Williams
Jihad Watch
September 15, 2017

More than 50 girls in New South Wales were trafficked into forced marriages to older men, with some ‘brides’ being as young as nine years old.

These girls are children in need of protection, but the “Islamophobia” ploy has become yet another weapon to terrorize infidels into immobility. The West in effect is being turned into a two-tier system: one law for Westerners and another for Muslims.

Denmark has been forced to allow ‘wives’ as young as 14 to be reunited with their ‘husbands’ after authorities deciding that upholding child protection laws breached migrants’ human rights.

The West has been forced into silence through lawfare, through false accusations about “Islamophobia,” while the most sinister abuses continue to be perpetrated against human beings, whose human rights are apparently trumped by those of their abusers.

Family and Community Services Minister Pru Goward…. said ‘the community’ does know that child brides do exist, but they choose to turn the other cheek, and ignore it

Back in June, Muslim cleric Ibrahim Omerdic was “convicted for marrying a child bride to a much older man under laws prohibiting forced marriage in Melbourne, Australia”; but that was only one case prosecuted. The Islamic Council of Victoria conceded that “marriage at a younger age is permitted in other countries and cultures,” but not in Australia, while “the Victorian Board of Imams disowned Omerdic” for not observing the laws of Australia.

Does anyone spot a problem with the mainstream Islamic Council and Victorian Board of Imams? Rather than condemn the abhorrent abuse of young girls, the primary concern they expressed was about the laws of Australia. They didn’t say it was warped or wrong to marry these young girls to older men, as it is in accordance with the Hadith and Islamic tradition.

The number of girls seeking help from the UK’s National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) for fear of being trafficked into a forced marriage is at a record high

These cases constitute the rape of underage, defenseless, voiceless girls. Yet few care enough about these innocent girls to intervene on their behalf, for fear of bring branded racist. Instead, last December, the South Australia state government actually blocked a bill to prevent forced child marriages, presumably so as not to offend Muslims who support this Islamic tradition.

“Girls as Young as Nine Are Trafficked into Forced Marriages in Australia”, by Victoria Friedman, Breitbart, September 13, 2017:

More than 50 girls in New South Wales were trafficked into forced marriages to older men, with some ‘brides’ being as young as nine years old.

Australia’s Seven News obtained documents from the Australian Federal Police on child marriage in the country. In just two years, a total of 57 children were victims of forced marriage in Australia, with almost all, 51, being from the Sydney area.

The AFP documents included: references to an email from a girl who wrote she was being held against her will and being forced to marry; a situation report with allegations of a forced marriage at the end of the school year; and a human trafficking referral of a girl who was forced to travel outside of Australia and then exploited.

Family and Community Services Minister Pru Goward said that children were under “enormous pressure” from their parents to marry. The minister said ‘the community’ “does know” that child brides do exist, but they choose to “turn the other cheek”, and ignore it.

Ms. Goward urged friends and relatives of children at risk of being trafficked or forced into marriage to come forward and to tell the children they do not have to marry, otherwise “we’ll end up with a continuation of forced marriages”.

Officials are left helpless to save the children once they leave the country, with documents noting the case of two young sisters from the Sydney suburb of Liverpool who were trafficked overseas for marriage. The AFP admitted all they could do was wait to see if the girls came back to Australia…..

A video of the ceremony shows the cleric instructing the girl that “as a wife, you have a duty to obey your husband”. The groom, meanwhile, is advised of his obligation to provide the minor with a “sexual education”.

The number of girls seeking help from the UK’s National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) for fear of being trafficked into a forced marriage is at a record high, with figures showing that as of the end of 2016, there has been just one conviction for child marriage in Britain.

Following the migrant crisis on the continent, the number of Muslim child brides in Germany’s capital, Berlin, is on the rise, and in Scandinavia, child ‘wives’ are being ‘tolerated‘ in migrant centres in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden.

Denmark has been forced to allow ‘wives’ as young as 14 to be reunited with their ‘husbands’ after authorities deciding that upholding child protection laws breached migrants’ human rights.

Man Raped His 15-Year-Old Stepdaughter and Took Her to Planned Parenthood for an Abortion

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
September 18, 2017

Yet more proof that abortion often is not a woman’s choice, a Utah man recently was accused of raping his step-daughter and taking her to Planned Parenthood for an abortion to cover up his abuse.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports the man, 34, of Salt Lake City, Utah, allegedly raped his 15-year-old step-daughter numerous times beginning in September 2016. The man’s name is not listed in reports, likely to protect his alleged victim’s identity.

Police said the man sent messages to the girl on Facebook to demand that she meet him. According to police, he would tell the girl to tell her mother that she was going to the library, and then he would take her to his home and rape her.

Here’s more from the report:

The teen told police that if she didn’t agree to have sex with the man, he would threaten to hurt her or her family. When he found out the girl was pregnant, the man took the girl to three Planned Parenthood locations to get an abortion, the teen said.

Utah law requires a biological parent or guardian sign off on abortions for minors, and when the centers denied him, the teen said he gave her a drink to induce a miscarriage.

The girl’s mother found a plastic bottle of the liquid mixture in the teen’s room and contacted police, telling them she suspected her daughter had been raped, according to court documents.

Police said the man admitted to having sex with the girl “once or twice a month for a year,” and giving her an abortion-inducing concoction. Reports do not indicate what was in the concoction or if it succeeded in killing her unborn baby.

According to police, the man “provided false information” to them to try to hide his actions.

He is charged with 12 counts of rape.

Most Americans probably do not realize how frequently women, especially victims of sexual abuse, are pressured to abort their unborn babies. Many face threats and sometimes physical violence if they refuse to give into their abuser’s demands.

Last week, LifeNews reported a New Zealand man also faces charges after he allegedly physically and sexually abused his daughter with special needs for nearly a decade. Police discovered the alleged abuse when the daughter went to a local hospital for an abortion.

In the spring, authorities also charged a Wisconsin man on numerous counts after he allegedly raped a young girl and then tried to abort her unborn baby himself.

These are just a small sample of the cases LifeNews has reported recently involving abuse and abortion.

Sexual abuse and abortion often are connected. A 2014 study published in PLOS Medicine found that 25 percent of women who had abortions faced some sort of abuse beforehand, either physical, sexual or emotional.

Sometimes abusers use abortions to cover up their crimes, making unborn babies second victims in a number of sexual abuse cases.

In an Ohio case, a 22-year-old soccer coach was convicted of sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl on his team, LifeNews reported. According to reports, he statutorily raped the girl; and when she became pregnant, he took her to Planned Parenthood to abort their unborn baby and cover up what he had done. The Ohio Planned Parenthood also faced a lawsuit for failing to report the sexual abuse of the young girl.

In an Arizona case, officials said another Planned Parenthood center failed to provide the proper report to authorities about a victim of a young man accused of being a serial rapist. Not only did Planned Parenthood fail to report the rape but, in so doing, it allowed the rapist to rape 18 or more teenage girls, authorities said, making it so the abortion company is partially responsible for victimizing them as well.

Research indicates human trafficking victims often are forced or coerced into aborting their unborn babies. A survey by the U.S. Department of State found that 55 percent of sex trafficking victims had at least one abortion, with 30 percent having multiple abortions. More than half said they did not choose to abort their unborn child; their traffickers ordered them to, according to the survey.

Many sexual abuse victims who become pregnant say the abortion only added to their trauma, according to research by the Elliot Institute.

In 2015, a sexual abuse victim told a British court that her abuser forced her to abort her unborn baby. While the woman admitted that she had no desire to be a mother, she said she would not have aborted her baby – “because I didn’t want to go through all that.”

Racism And Guns: Why The Left Keeps Painting Gun Owners As Racist

with 3 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
September 18, 2017

Gun owners get an awful rap in the modern media. While it’s fine for a Hollywood action hero to be loaded down with guns, the average citizen who does so is a ticking time bomb in their world. It’s worse with the news media, which routinely paints gun owners as being every kind of bigot imaginable. Recently, Bearing Arms has run two stories where this has come up. The first one, anti-gunners were trying to paint pro-gun folks as racists. The second, run just this weekend, liberal gun folks talked about the NRA’s supposedly “racist” policies.

Now, we all know this isn’t true. Gun owners are incredibly open to new folks, regardless of ethnicity. We love seeing new people shoot. Race is irrelevant for the vast majority of us.

I’m not saying there are no racist gun owners because we’re not some monolithic group, but you’ll have a far easier time finding racists at the Democratic National Convention than at the NRA’s annual meeting.

And that, my friends, is why the left tries to paint gun owners as the racists.

By now, many pro-Second Amendment advocates and activists understand the racist roots of gun control in this country. Even the more mainstream political site, The Hill, understands it.

One month after the Confederate surrender in 1865, Frederick Douglass urged federal action to stop state and local infringement of the right to arms. Until this was accomplished, Douglass argued, “the work of the abolitionists is not finished.”

Indeed, it was not. As the Special Report of the Paris Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867 found, freedmen in some southern states “were forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assault.” Thus, white supremacists could continue to control freedmen through threat of violence.

Congress demolished these racist laws. The Freedmen’s Bureau Bill of 1865Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Civil Rights Act of 1870 each guaranteed all persons equal rights of self-defense. Most importantly, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, made the Second Amendment applicable to the states.

Because of the 14th Amendment, gun control laws now had to be racially neutral. But states quickly learned to draft neutrally-worded laws for discriminatory application. Tennessee and Arkansas prohibited handguns that freedmen could afford, while allowing expensive “Army & Navy” handguns, which ex-Confederate officers already owned.

The South Carolina law against concealed carry put blacks in chain gangs, but whites only paid a small fine, if anything. In the early 20th century, such laws began to spread beyond the ex-Confederacy. An Ohio Supreme Court Justice acknowledged that such statutes reflected “a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the Negro.”


The anti-gun left paints gun owners in general, and the NRA in particular, as racist because they don’t want anyone to see their own racist past. They’re the mean kid in school who picks on everyone so nobody will look too closely at their own flaws.

Unfortunately, most folks who don’t know the gun culture don’t realize that no, we’re not a bunch of racist rednecks. They don’t understand that we’re just good folks who want to protect ourselves and our families.

They might know an individual gun owner or two who they don’t think of a racist, but the media paints a picture that makes it easy for the average American to believe those are the exception, not the rule. The anti-gun left likes it that way because it makes it easier to disarm law-abiding gun owners if the rank and file voter thinks we’re all hood-wearing Klansmen.

Meanwhile, they hide the racism in their past all while stilltrying to keep inner city blacks from obtaining weapons to protect themselves.

They’ll paint us a racist because they don’t want anyone to see their own hoods.

%d bloggers like this: